Using Ward Lists For Political Purposes

[mountainrider]

I got a letter in the mail today asking me to follow other LDS members in the San Diego area in voting for Eric Roach in the special election on April 11th. This is the seat that Duke Cunningham disgracefully vacated last year. The letter used quotes from the D&C, President Benson and Joseph Smith in telling me that I should vote for their guy. The odd thing is that I haven't lived at the address they originally sent it to for almost a year (the letter was forwarded) and the ONLY way they could have known who I was or that I was a member of the LDS church is from a Stake Directory or ward list. Is this wrong, or is it just me? This is almost as bad as Living Scriptures mysteriously showing up at my door trying to strong arm me into buying their videos.

[Dror]

Mountainrider,

It is wrong for people to use ward or stake directories for political purposes. The Brethren periodically send letters to the bishops (especially prior to elections), asking that they be read in sacrament meeting, that specifically state that neither Church directories nor Church facilities may be used for political campaigns or other purposes. They also say that the Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. They do encourage us to participate actively in our community, but do not tell us how to vote, just to vote according to sound moral principles and for "good and wise" people. The Church is politically neutral.

It's pretty amazing that Joseph Smith and Ezra Taft Benson knew Eric Roach well enough to endorse him for political office! Also, I'd like to know in which section and verse of the D&C it says to vote for Eric Roach... Eric Roach may be a great guy, but I tend to shy away from people who claim to be "God's candidate." But that's neither here nor there.

I think the Church's position to be very wise. The Founders of the USA considered partisanship to be a great threat to our democracy. We would do well to actually listen to what others have to say, for I think fairly often we'll find ourselves agreeing with them, at least in part--just that we articulate it differently or emphasize certain things more than others. Even where we don't agree, I think we often have similar goals, just different ways to meet them.

As the Church's goal is to unite people, partisanship is antithetical to the Gospel. For this reason, the Church is wise to stay out of the political fray. (And also to protect freedom of religion!)

[pushka]

Just a little anecdote from the time I spent visiting the LDS church in the '70's in the UK. I was informed by one of my fellow youths, I was 15 and he was 17, that the church was instructed to support whatever government was in office at any particular time...I think he had confused the issue slightly by believing that church members were also to vote for that government, even if it wasn't the one they usually supported...which made sense to me at the time, but wouldn't do now of course! I was gutted to hear about this, although I wasn't then able to vote...too young, as our Prime Minister at the time, 1979, was Maggie Thatcher, whom me and my fellow Young Socialists/Labour Supporters, and the parents/friends of ours who had helped shape our political beliefs/affinities was nothing but a monster!!!

Two things stand out in my mind about Maggie Thatcher:

1. A phrase my grandma always used about her : 'Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher'...as she stopped giving free milk to children in schools during her term as Minister of Health, circa 1972.

2. The demolition of the Coal Mining Industry in the UK under her 'rule' in the 80's, which not only caused my dad to lose his job but many other fathers/brothers/sons and caused, indirectly, the suicide of many young fathers who unfortunately couldn't cope with the aftermath of the elongated strike action and their defeat, and which caused some to get into debt that they couldn't repay and into the use of drugs to which they became addicted, due to the depression they were feeling...

Sorry to go on, I just had to vent about it!!

[Palerider]

Just a little anecdote from the time I spent visiting the LDS church in the '70's in the UK. I was informed by one of my fellow youths, I was 15 and he was 17, that the church was instructed to support whatever government was in office at any particular time...I think he had confused the issue slightly by believing that church members were also to vote for that government, even if it wasn't the one they usually supported...which made sense to me at the time, but wouldn't do now of course! I was gutted to hear about this, although I wasn't then able to vote...too young, as our Prime Minister at the time, 1979, was Maggie Thatcher, whom me and my fellow Young Socialists/Labour Supporters, and the parents/friends of ours who had helped shape our political beliefs/affinities was nothing but a monster!!!

Two things stand out in my mind about Maggie Thatcher:

1. A phrase my grandma always used about her : 'Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher'...as she stopped giving free milk to children in schools during her term as Minister of Health, circa 1972.

2. The demolition of the Coal Mining Industry in the UK under her 'rule' in the 80's, which not only caused my dad to lose his job but many other fathers/brothers/sons and caused, indirectly, the suicide of many young fathers who unfortunately couldn't cope with the aftermath of the elongated strike action and their defeat, and which caused some to get into debt that they couldn't repay and into the use of drugs to which they became addicted, due to the depression they were feeling...

Sorry to go on, I just had to vent about it!!

Pushka.....not trying to be a smart aleck but Maggie Thatcher ......wasn't she voted back into power a few times and won big if I remember correctly.

[prisonchaplain]

I got a letter in the mail today asking me to follow other LDS members in the San Diego area in voting for Eric Roach in the special election on April 11th. ... Is this wrong, or is it just me? This is almost as bad as Living Scriptures mysteriously showing up at my door trying to strong arm me into buying their videos.

Just some thoughts from one who first engaged in polical activism due to moral concerns.

1. Courts have determined that churches cannot publish "voting guides" that specifically endorse particular candidates. The Moral Majority did so for a time, but bowed to the directives of the courts. Likewise the Christian Coalition.

2. The Christian Right did try to recruit LDS during the early 1980s, and I would be surprised if such efforts were not on-going.

3. There are certainly sincere believers in both American parties, and in most of the parties of Europe and Canada, etc.

4. There are connivers, willing to use religion for their own purposes in all major parties.

5. I agree that churches should avoid too directly jumping into the political fray. On the other hand, there are times when issues of import arise, and churches can "speak the truth to power." Slavery and Civil Rights in America were two obvious ones. Many believe that abortion is also.

6. It enrages me to hear folk say that churches have NOTHING to say in the public square, or that religious leaders should never address political leaders.

7. I will never endorse a political party that makes religion itself a platform item (i.e. an American Christian party).

[pushka]

<div class='quotemain'>

Just a little anecdote from the time I spent visiting the LDS church in the '70's in the UK. I was informed by one of my fellow youths, I was 15 and he was 17, that the church was instructed to support whatever government was in office at any particular time...I think he had confused the issue slightly by believing that church members were also to vote for that government, even if it wasn't the one they usually supported...which made sense to me at the time, but wouldn't do now of course! I was gutted to hear about this, although I wasn't then able to vote...too young, as our Prime Minister at the time, 1979, was Maggie Thatcher, whom me and my fellow Young Socialists/Labour Supporters, and the parents/friends of ours who had helped shape our political beliefs/affinities was nothing but a monster!!!

Two things stand out in my mind about Maggie Thatcher:

1. A phrase my grandma always used about her : 'Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher'...as she stopped giving free milk to children in schools during her term as Minister of Health, circa 1972.

2. The demolition of the Coal Mining Industry in the UK under her 'rule' in the 80's, which not only caused my dad to lose his job but many other fathers/brothers/sons and caused, indirectly, the suicide of many young fathers who unfortunately couldn't cope with the aftermath of the elongated strike action and their defeat, and which caused some to get into debt that they couldn't repay and into the use of drugs to which they became addicted, due to the depression they were feeling...

Sorry to go on, I just had to vent about it!!

Pushka.....not trying to be a smart aleck but Maggie Thatcher ......wasn't she voted back into power a few times and won big if I remember correctly.

Hi Palerider, don't worry, I don't think you're trying to be a smart aleck at all...you're correct, she did win the General Election originally in 1979 and continued through the 80's, until she resigned from the Conservative Party in the 90's I believe...

My post was completely subjective, and biased against her of course, and I do realise that there were lots of people who supported her strong willed attitude, 'This lady's not for turning' being one of her most famous quotes, plus many women supported her originally as being the 1st woman Prime Minister...unfortunately for her and for John Major at the time, I think! (unless he'd already resigned too) the UK finally decided they'd had enough of the Conservative Party by 1997 and voted in Tony Blair and his 'New Labour' Government.

Many of us old-left Socialists/Labour party supporters believe that T.B. is just another of Maggie's supporters in disguise however, as New Labour has mimicked the Conservative party more and more throughout it's years in office, plus his father was a Conservative councillor I believe.

(note: I'm putting in 'I believe's and what not when I haven't checked sources for the correct dates or facts regarding John Major and T.B.'s father!).

I think the point I was trying to make in my original post, and which was lost when I started rambling, was that I believed in 1979 that as an LDS member you HAD to vote for the current government whether you believed in it or not, which made me feel like running a mile because it made me think the Church was Conservative...which obviously, in its outlook I suppose it does appear to be, but individual members are not, necessarily...

Sorry to ramble again!!!

[Palerider]

I think that most of all Churches appear to be on the Conservative side.....one thingabout the Church Leaders of the LDS Church there are Democrats and Republicans mixed in the list of General Authorities.....the reason I asked abouit Maggie.....I was there from 1979-1981......

[pushka]

Palerider, I agree that most churches do appear to be 'conservative' in their religious views, although many perhaps are more 'socialist' in their humanitarian outlook...as in giving aid to the poor etc. Just my opinion, of course.

Interesting to hear you were over here from '79-'81, where were you located? I'm in Lancashire.

[Palerider]

Palerider, I agree that most churches do appear to be 'conservative' in their religious views, although many perhaps are more 'socialist' in their humanitarian outlook...as in giving aid to the poor etc. Just my opinion, of course.

Interesting to hear you were over here from '79-'81, where were you located? I'm in Lancashire.

I served in the Leeds England Mission.......I was in Huddersfield and Whitehaven and Scarborough and Worksop....had a great time there as a missionary

[pushka]

Leeds isn't overly far from where I live...don't think there were occasions that I can remember any of the Leeds wards coming to any of our events however, we tended to visit places like Rawtenstall and Preston (think that would be the Stake, perhaps?) rather than the Yorkshire wards.

After posting the above, I did a quick search to find out whether Preston is indeed a Stake, and found the following interesting link to the History of the LDS Church around the Preston Area, I was particularly interested in the references to the villages around Pendle Hill as I live in Nelson which is one of the towns nearby to Pendle Hill.

(My apologies for going off-topic, I suppose we could start a separate thread about the interesting LDS history of our particular locations if anybody else wants to contribute?)

http://www.lds.org.uk/content/view/14/47/

[Palerider]

Thanks for sharing that......I also have a book that is quite good.....titled....the History of the Church in the British Isles....I think thats the name of it........

[pushka]

That sounds really interesting Palerider, I should seek it out, thanks.

[luckynumbersleven]

i feel sorry for your family etc palerider, but am firmly of the opinion that the government should have no right whatsoever to support a minority in a failing uncompetative industry by garnishing the wages of the majority - the only viable and tested way to improve the livelihood of individuals (and subsequently society as a whole) is to let people keep the vast majority of what they earn in order to better their own lives, since they know how best to spend their money than government does.

this from a fellow brit, albeit now in the US. there are many people on lower incomes in the UK, say 25,000 pounds ($40,000) losing a good 25% of that in deductions and taxes! same here in the US. at that level of salary, esp. for those w/ families to support, and esp. for LDS families w/ stay-at-home mothers, that is a big chunck of income which could make a difference if not stolen by the government to fund the slothful and idle yet able-bodied young men who are always on welfare, single mothers on council estates, so-called family planning clinics, a second-rate/world socialized health service - the list goes on.

taxes should be no more than 10%, period. and the government should have nothing to do beyond law and order (police, justice system), maintaining roads, and national security and waging war. health care and education should be relegated to the private sector, and the truly needy (disabled, elderly) should get welfare from charitable organizations and churches first, w/ gvt stepping in as a last resort.

as for the topic of this thread, btw - you should send that letter back to whoever and write them to kiss your a*#!

[Winnie G]

In our directory, it states that the directory is to be used for one purpose only for church business.

Now some may argue. That political ideology and interest is church business. I.e.: Same sex marriage, shopping on Sundays etc… Yes there are places were stores are still closed on Sundays,

The one draw back is the Stake Directory, thanks to ward clerks who put little effort in to their callings the directorys are 50% wrong all the time.

I used the church directory to send out wedding invitations does that mean I am going to hell?

PS Not all ward clerks are slopping, some send your records so they arrive the Sunday after you move.

We were introduced once on our first Sunday, our records arrived before that Sunday.

When the bishop announced the receiving of our records, he looked around and we stood up.

He was astonished and made a comment to his clerk. It was a wonderful welcome.

[Palerider]

i feel sorry for your family etc palerider, but am firmly of the opinion that the government should have no right whatsoever to support a minority in a failing uncompetative industry by garnishing the wages of the majority - the only viable and tested way to improve the livelihood of individuals (and subsequently society as a whole) is to let people keep the vast majority of what they earn in order to better their own lives, since they know how best to spend their money than government does.

this from a fellow brit, albeit now in the US. there are many people on lower incomes in the UK, say 25,000 pounds ($40,000) losing a good 25% of that in deductions and taxes! same here in the US. at that level of salary, esp. for those w/ families to support, and esp. for LDS families w/ stay-at-home mothers, that is a big chunck of income which could make a difference if not stolen by the government to fund the slothful and idle yet able-bodied young men who are always on welfare, single mothers on council estates, so-called family planning clinics, a second-rate/world socialized health service - the list goes on.

taxes should be no more than 10%, period. and the government should have nothing to do beyond law and order (police, justice system), maintaining roads, and national security and waging war. health care and education should be relegated to the private sector, and the truly needy (disabled, elderly) should get welfare from charitable organizations and churches first, w/ gvt stepping in as a last resort.

as for the topic of this thread, btw - you should send that letter back to whoever and write them to kiss your a*#!

You feel sorry for my family.....I must have missed something here.......

[Dror]

i feel sorry for your family etc palerider, but am firmly of the opinion that the government should have no right whatsoever to support a minority in a failing uncompetative industry by garnishing the wages of the majority - the only viable and tested way to improve the livelihood of individuals (and subsequently society as a whole) is to let people keep the vast majority of what they earn in order to better their own lives, since they know how best to spend their money than government does.

this from a fellow brit, albeit now in the US. there are many people on lower incomes in the UK, say 25,000 pounds ($40,000) losing a good 25% of that in deductions and taxes! same here in the US. at that level of salary, esp. for those w/ families to support, and esp. for LDS families w/ stay-at-home mothers, that is a big chunck of income which could make a difference if not stolen by the government to fund the slothful and idle yet able-bodied young men who are always on welfare, single mothers on council estates, so-called family planning clinics, a second-rate/world socialized health service - the list goes on.

taxes should be no more than 10%, period. and the government should have nothing to do beyond law and order (police, justice system), maintaining roads, and national security and waging war. health care and education should be relegated to the private sector, and the truly needy (disabled, elderly) should get welfare from charitable organizations and churches first, w/ gvt stepping in as a last resort.

as for the topic of this thread, btw - you should send that letter back to whoever and write them to kiss your a*#!

Wow, Lucky! Talking about sweeping generalizations about the poor! No offense, but maybe you should consider rereading King Benjamin's talk, you know, that stuff about not saying they brought it upon themselves... People lose jobs, you know. There are also many people who are disabled, either physically or who have mental illnesses, and for one reason or another family members (or churches, or other private charities) can't, or won't, give them the help they need. To be honest, I myself had to receive government help for a while and had to accept charity from other people. Now I work full-time again, and am doing better, but I don't know what I would have done if it weren't for kind individuals and government assistance. The way I see it, most people need a hand from time to time, and it's only right to contribute our share by paying our taxes. Of course, taxes shouldn't be excessive, and should be weighted according to people's ability to pay.

Speaking of government subsidies, one could make the argument that in the US, at least, governments, whether federal or local, give subsidies to the rich and to large corporations. They give large corporations all kinds of tax breaks, for various reasons, such as complying with the law (like not pumping poison into the air. Jeez, it sure would be great if I got tax breaks for obeying the law!!) or to attract their business to their area. The government is cutting taxes for the rich right and left, such as the estate tax (no, it's not a "death tax," and only the wealthiest estates actually have had to pay it) and capitals gains taxes (which one doesn't even earn by the "sweat of one's brow"--why should I pay taxes I earn by actual work, while some rich guy doesn't have to pay taxes on money he has invested? Huh?) Guess where this all leaves us--with a skyrocketing national debt. Cutting revenues and increasing expenditures. Who will pay it off? Our children and grandchildren. So much for "fiscal responsibility."

It doesn't seem terribly responsible either to break the back of your nation's industrial base by squashing the unions and sending jobs overseas. (And giving tax breaks for companies to do so!)

Sorry, had to vent. Little tired of conservative dogma being passed off as revealed truth.

You obviously don't have to agree with me. Just recognize that there is more than one point of view.

[pushka]

Dror! Thanks so much for your post...

I was baffled (re the reference to Palerider's family?) and shocked by the content of lucynumbersleven's post...I just couldn't find the words to reply...mind you, his reply regarding the Immigration problem isn't too great, in my opinion, regarding the situation in Europe...